Mass Job Losses In The Retail Sector Expected....costs Up £7Bn..

[ToraToraTora]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp816jrnynyo

....yes it's real labour alright.

£2.33bn ENI, simlar for both minimum wage increases and new "environmental" levies on packagin etc.

Is Labour trying to kill off what is left of the high st?

[New Judge]

“Theres no stats at all in the OP, just hearsay.”

I wouldn’t normally mention it but you have the wrong understanding of “hearsay”. And you’ve used the term in a number of threads. 

Hearsay is “second hand” information which you might hear from somebody else. For example, if you say “Alan told me he saw Bill punch Charlie” you cannot say with certainty that Bill punched Charlie. All you can say is that you heard Alan say he did (hence the term).

The link provided in the OP includes no hearsay. It is information from employers who know exactly how much the new measures will cost them. They know how many people they employ; they know how much they pay each of them; they know how much that means currently in terms of NI and they can calculate accurately how much more they will pay under the new charges. They are saying what they will have to do to cope with those extra costs. That is not hearsay.

I’m sure you’ll agree that businesses cannot simply wait to see what happens. They have to make those calculations. Is foolish to dismiss them as “hearsay”.
 

[nicebloke1]

Someone must have told TTT  about these losses, so hearsay. I doubt TTT would make this up would he??? 

[newmodarmy]

I'd give up if I were you newjudge.

[nicebloke1]

The alarm has gone off.

[nicebloke1]

He could however heard massive over the top estimates. :0)

[New Judge]

"Someone must have told TTT  about these losses, so hearsay. I doubt TTT would make this up would he???" 

The link that TTT provided forms part of his post. That link contains first hand comments from retailers. It was those comments his question related to. He didn't add any unsubstantiated information himself.

If you quote something from a reliable source and comment on it that may be opinion, but not hearsay. You have stated in a few threads that reports of what various groups have said the effect that the budget will have on their businesses is hearsay. It isn't. 

Of course you could argue that everything you read is merely hearsay because you were not present when it happened. If that's the case I think you should consider your position when contributing to a written forum.

I said previously that I'm unsure whether you are uninformed or simply being obtuse. or cantankerous. The jury's still out on that one.

[ToraToraTora]

judge: "I said previously that I'm unsure whether you are uninformed or simply being obtuse. or cantankerous. The jury's still out on that one." - try moronic trolling idiot.

[New Judge]

"...try moronic trolling idiot."

I'm far too polite to say that, Tora!  🤣 

[nicebloke1]

No NJ PLEASE join your insulting mate TTT. How about the comments from retailers being exaggerated passed on by our very own doom and gloom mongers, the main ones being yourself and TTT.

[nicebloke1]

Oh I nearly forgot, bless me. TTTs OP ( Kill off what is left of the high street) it was killed off during the last 14 of the cons.

[Pegasus16]

Blimey, what a horrific mess this shambolic UKGov is creating. It's just one disaster after another, totally out of their depth.

[nicebloke1]

Your dead right their in a mess, one big mess the cons left behind.

[vulcan42]

nicebloke, the point you miss is during those years you refer to, Starmer repeatedly told us he could do better. The last few months have proved he can do a lot worse.

[nicebloke1]

He's trying to get this country back on its feet valcan and improve sevices for everyone. And to do that he intends to recover funds back off the big companies that have been feeding off the tax payer for 14 years.

Al these big companies that are pleading poverty now, have got away with paying very low wages leaving the tax payer to top up their wages with (In work benefits) ie the government have been topping up poor pay. Hence the increase in minimum wage and increase in NI. Its payback time and there bleating about it because they've got used to feeding and making millions off the tax payer, more wants more, but not any more.

[New Judge]

“Al these big companies that are pleading poverty now, have got away with paying very low wages leaving the tax payer to top up their wages”

Incredible as it may seem, I absolutely agree. Among the biggest single mistake any government has made in the last 20 years or so was the introduction of Working Tax Credits.

They were said to have been introduced to help parents back to work and to support families on low incomes. In truth what they have done is to skew the economy and employment market place. They have enabled people to take less onerous jobs and/or work fewer hours than they really need to and enabled employers to take advantage of that by offering low pay and perhaps employing two people at part time hours where one full time worker would be sufficient (thus reducing their employers’ NI bill). The end result is that the taxpayer picks up the tab (which is considerable) to provide both employers and employees with these advantages.

Had they not been introduced, employers would have to have offered more realistic pay or they would have been unable to attract and keep their staff, and employees would have been unable to choose to take lower paid jobs and/or work fewer hours.

Instead many of the low paid/low hours jobs are only taken by people who are eligible for the credits. The eligibility is roughly those responsible for children, those receiving sickness or disability benefits and those over 60. Most of these need to work only sixteen hours to qualify. If the credits were not available they would be unlikely to take the jobs (or at least would need to work more hours) and employers would have to make employment more attractive.

[ToraToraTora]

“Al these big companies that are pleading poverty now, have got away with paying very low wages leaving the tax payer to top up their wages”

The judge makes excellent point in response to that. I would add thought that that's what companies do, take advantage of any opportunity to reduce costs and increase profits. They also react to governement actions to reduce the effects of those things. It's child like naivety from people like nicebloke to expect them to shrug their shoulders and say "ok the game's up" we'll pay the extra costs the government is imposing! NO they won't they'll move heaven and earth to do what they do, maximise profits and that means anything legal goes. Thus the government needs to anticipate what they'll do rather than hope they'll play ball, they won't. In the end the ENI hike will not raise any money and is quite likely going to cost in lost jobs, more dole and less tax/ni from those former employees.

[New Judge]

“I would add thought that that's what companies do, take advantage of any opportunity to reduce costs and increase profits.”

Quite so, Tora. I don’t blame the employers. They must take advantage of any circumstances laid before them in the same way that they must now take steps to mitigate the effects of the raised NI costs.

This will almost certainly lead to either higher prices, loss of jobs or reduced pay (or a combination of those). My own guess is that job losses (or failure to grow staff numbers) will be top of the list. Many retail jobs are minimum wage or thereabouts so reducing pay is not a viable option. Increased prices might jeopardise their market share and so will be avoided as much as possible. 

But you are right – they will not simply shrug their shoulders and see money disappear from their bottom line. But then we have a Chancellor who says the only way to see growth was to “invest, invest, invest” before taking £25bn from those likely to do the investing.